Whether decides to do what would be best

Rubashov calling a hero is might be a reach, discussing his moral awakening
through the Three Hearings is a true insight of his character.  This might be a good indicator where the
Christ-like claim can be substantiated. 
Throughout the novel, readers are in Rubashov’s mind, which is important
to determine whether he is guilty or innocent of the crimes that he is accused
of.  Rubashov may not even be a reliable
narrator because throughout the novel, he retraces his memories and questions
their authenticity.  Harold Strauss
states in “The Riddle of Moscow’s Trials:”

Because his are still the standards of a man who has dedicated
himself unswervingly for forty years to the program of the revolution, to the
struggle for its abstractly conceived ends by any necessary means, howsoever
horrible. When such a man allows doubt to creep into his mind, when he
questions whether the revolution might not after all cost too much in human
suffering, he knows he is guilty.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

This sense
of guilt comes up often especially on those he betrayed like Arlova, his
secretary-mistress or Richard.  Arlova
was especially problematic because he had an intimate relationship with
her.  When she was appointed a librarian
position in the bureaucratic unit, she garnered a lot of suspicion.  The Party gave him a choice and he decides to
do what would be best for the Party not for the life of someone else: “He had
sacrificed Arlova because his own existence was more valuable to the
Revolution…. the duty to keep oneself in reserve for later on was more
important than the commandments of petty bourgeois morality,” (128-129; Second
Hearing, Chapter 4). Richard can be seen as a reflection of himself, a person
that was dedicated to the Party but was disillusioned by the message.  However at the time, Rubashov was seeing what
Richard has done (changing the Party’s message to his own ideals on a flyer) as
treason.  There was no room for
individualism within the Party.  The only
thing that matter to him was the Party and spreading the message as he states:

“The Party can never be mistaken,” said Rubashov. “You and I can
make a mistake. Not the Party. The Party, comrade, is more than you and I and a
thousand others like you and I. The Party is the embodiment of the
revolutionary idea in history. History knows no scruples and no hesitation.

Inert and unerring, she flows towards her goal. At every bend in her course she
leaves the mud, which she carries, and the corpses of the drowned. History
knows her way. She makes no mistakes. He who has not absolute faith in History
does not belong in the Party’s ranks.” (43-44; First Hearing, Chapter 9)

refuses to protect him.  His unwavering
commitment to the Party will not allow him to tap into his individuality, which
at the end leads to his own execution:

The old disease, thought Rubashov. Revolutionaries should not
think through other people’s minds.  Or,
perhaps they should? Or even ought to?  How
can one change the world if one identifies oneself with everybody? How else can
one change it? (23; First Hearing, Chapter 8)

conviction of eliminating the individual out of the Party’s logic gave him the
ability to carry out the Party’s demands without thinking of the consequences
it might cause in the future.  The whole
objective is to carry out the Party’s goals at all costs.  It isn’t until he was arrested that he gives
himself the ability to reflect his individuality and morality to realize that
the Party is wrong and that his duty to his commitment to the Party was harmful
to others: “Up till now, he had never imagined Arlova’s death in such detail.

It had always been for him an abstract occurrence; it had left him with a
feeling of strong uneasiness, but he had never doubted the logical rightness of
his behavior,” (145; Second Hearing, Chapter 6).